I doubt it. I'm guessing that the vast majority of mowers probably don't have emissions controls like a cat or PCV system, or an evaporative control system. Which means it's likely that they do emit gasoline vapor, what minic6 was referring to. Hell, some motorcycles/scooters built before 2004 in CA and 2006 in the US are using nearly three decade old emissions standards.
And even with the new standards, they still pollute nearly three-four times more per unit distance compared to a T2B5 car built after 99, and probably most gassers built in the 90s.
*shrug* I've only seen the numbers on the honda 4-strokes, so I guess I don't know much about the industry standard, but they are decent. In any case, if I have a lawn to mow long from now, there are always fancy things called electric mowers or just plain push blade mowers (or whatever their real "nonswirly" name is).
I was talking with dennis kucinich and his wife one day a few months ago, and he told me the main difference between him and any other politician was that he still feels like he did when he run for city council during college, even if he's 60. He just never let go of feeling young (and his 28 year old, hot, british wife can show that). As my favorite nutritionist has said "I would like to die young at a very old age.
I followed this link (out of curiosity), and IMHO it's little more than a lobbying web site, set up to convince some (gullible) consumers that they should help lobby congress for lower standards (so that the industry can continue to make SHORT TERM profits at the expense of both long term industry health and the health of our country).
Of course, given the money behind this campaign, and the FUD on that site, I have no doubt that some consumers will fall for this stupidity, and actually send letters to their congressional representatives. And this in turn will put pressure on congress to cave into these industry demands.
So how about if gassavers members (at least the ones living in the USA) try to at least provide a small counter-argument to this lobbying (by telling congress that we support CAFE, becuase it's good for the long term interests of this country)? With luck, this will be enough of a counter-argument in the debate, that congress won't blindly follow this (industry paid for) madness of pursuing short-term gains at the expense of long term viability for the country.
Obviously, I wouldn't trust a site like that to pass on a "letter" that is critical of their (industry bought) position, so don't bother trying to submit a letter/email via their web site (but you could still use their web site to look up your congressmen, and send a letter/fax to them directly). And such letters don't need to be long/detailed either (a signed single page letter explaining how you would encourage them to support tougher FE rules (i.e. CAFE), because it's in the long term interests of the country, and even the long term interests of our domestic auto industry), should be sufficient. The important thing about such letters is to keep them short, polite, and personal (mass letter writing campaigns using a template are usually less effective). Oh, and limit the letter writing to your congress persons, and sign the letter (so that they can confirm that you are a potential voter of theirs, vs just an outside lobbyist).
NOTE: Over the years, I haven't written to my congressional representatives very often. However, on those few occasions when I have, I've found that sending a personal (you actually wrote it, vs just copied some template "as is") letter will generally be at least acknowledged by your representative (btw: a letter is MUCH more effective than email, from what I've heard).
So while "letter writing" might not be as effective as big money to sway congress, such letters do still get "on their radar" as to what their "constituents" really are looking for. Which is why I think that a few letters now (while high gas prices are pushing the issue into the national attention) might be so important. Because the last thing we really want to let happen, is for this industry stupidity (of no FE standards) be the only voice congress hears about this important issue for our future. And if someone doesn't speak up pro-CAFE, that's exactly what will happen...
I think honda has the highest CAFE of any of them, around 32...they have their own company wide plan, but it's not nearly as dramatic as this plan...(though the 35mpg goal wouldn't really do much for honda anyway).
Matt, you should design a thing like the advocacy sites use to send letters to reps, if you know what I mean? You plug in your info and it selects your reps and gives you a sample letter. We can have a section of the site dedicated to that kinda thing, make it easier for people to mail their senators.
If the domestics can't hack it they should go down the tubes. What is forgotten here is that regardless of what the brands are, America will need X number of cars. If the Big 3 go down, other makers will start making more cars, which will cause more jobs to be made in the other companies. Other US automakers have gone under, and we are still here and still driving.
One thing I would like to see, is that the automakers be given the requirements, then told to get there however they want to. Regulators requiring the methods when they aren't engineers is a big reason why the 70s emissions crap didn't work well.
Well, look at how they build them. Econoboxes are noisy, cheap feeling crap on the domestic side, and they are not built for any kind of comfort at all. If you are tall, forget it. Do they have to be this way? No. Foreign econoboxes are far more comfortable than domestics, and are built better.
One reason I know is true on why the domestics are so resistant to change, they build fixed lines that can't really be reconfigured for different stuff easily. And right now they are set up for large gas guzzlers.
Second reason I know for sure, is the profit margins on those large vehicles is a lot larger, to the tune of 10-12 grand per vehicle. An easy way to see the actual value vs the sales cost of a vehicle is to look at the 1 year trade-in value. A new SUV loses close to half its value the first year, because the automaker's profits and health/pension costs do NOT count.
A third reason that I do NOT know but would not be surprised if true, how much interstock sharing is there between the automakers and oil companies? If an automaker has a lot of oil stock bought, it only makes sense to sell gas guzzlers and not econoboxes, because they get to keep making money after the sale. And, oil companies heavily invested in auto makers would have a vested interest in making sure the auto makers kept building guzzlers.
So far as the million spent on lobbying Congress, that is a small, small part of the money that would be required in developing a more fuel efficient car, remaking a manufacturing line to build it, ect ect.
The Big Three are whining not because they can't build vehicles that meet or beat the proposed CAFE- they are saying that they don't want to build Metros because not enough people will buy them- the people want to buy Subdivisions and Exploders. That, and the profit per unit drops by probably 300%.
I'm sure that's right. Remind me why the margins differ so much.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein
I'm glad to have missed the actual having to work on it, by the time I had to mess with cars it was 1986 and all that crap meant to me was a few minutes with a wrench to remove it and dump it in the trash. Every car I took that stuff off of ran better. A lot of that gear was mandated for use, even if it wasn't suited for that particular engine. It was only after emissions controls had been out for a while that the regulators started allowing the makers to not include it, like EGR valves. Not all cars have them anymore, even though they were mandated once upon a time.